Jay Fenello wrote:
>Since ICANN has decided that a person or
>organization can belong to more than one
>constituency, one of the first orders of
>business is to define these constituencies
>in concrete terms. In other words, where
>and how do we draw the lines.
I think we should leave the constituency open to any non-commercial
individual or organization. The definition of "non-commercial," however,
should not be "non-profit." The ICC and INTA are both "non-profit"
entities, but their purpose is to vigorously promote commercial
interests. This constituency obviously was not meant for them.*
(* To the extent that such entities were interested in participating
because of issues affecting them as non-profit domain name holders,
perhaps they shouldn't be excluded, but I think it would be very
difficult to ask a commercial advocacy organization to stop acting as a
commercial advocate for purposes of participation in this
"non-commercial" constituency.)
The task here, I think, is to open the membership widely in terms of what
*kind* of entity can participate (individuals, non-profits corps.,
organizations) but carefully define "non-commercial." The definition
should focus on the individual or organization's purpose in participating
and not its corporate form ("non-profit").
Just a few thoughts to get people thinking. The BMW draft had interesting
language on this point that we should look at, though they excluded
individuals in their definition.
-- Bret
